• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Which is best macro lense-your latest thoughts? (1 Viewer)

David Smith

Warrington Lancs
I have read through all the interesting comments here (and on world photography forum) and I realise that 'in the end' it's down to me to decide.

I think I have narrowed the choice down to Sigma 150mm or Canon 100mm (longer Canon too expensive for me).
My reasons are:-
a) the reach of the Sigma (so as not to disturb subject)
b) Canon quality (to go with my 40d)
c) lense length doesn't increase (which I think is important for extreme
close-up's). I understand it does with Tamron.

I was interested in those who were in a similar situation to me recently-what did you eventually choose & are you happy or would you change?:t:
 
I believe the Canon has full time manual focus as well which the Sigma doesn't.

I'm in the same position. I'd prefer a longer focal length for slightly greater distance to subject but I'm very much leaning towards the Canon.
 
I use the Sigma 105 f2.8 macro, it's a cracking lens with excellent IQ. When I bought it I did consider the Canon but did feel it was worth the extra so went for the Sigma. Recently I tested a Sigma 150 f2.8 and thought it was excellent, the longer focal length and full time manual focus both seemed like advantages over the 105. I decided that the differences were not worth the cost of changing, however if I'd been buying my first macro I'd definitely have gone for the 150.
 
I believe the Canon has full time manual focus as well which the Sigma doesn't.

The two shorter Sigma macros (50 f2.8 & 105 f2.8) don't have full time manual focus, but the two longer ones do (150 f2.8 and 180 f3.5).
 
. Recently I tested a Sigma 150 f2.8 and thought it was excellent, the longer focal length and full time manual focus both seemed like advantages over the 105..

What is the advantage of "full time" manual focus ?

I notice Ian thinks the Canon does have this while the Sigma doesn't-from your test can I assume that it does? (even if I'm not yet sure of the advantage)
 
. Recently I tested a Sigma 150 f2.8 and thought it was excellent, the longer focal length and full time manual focus both seemed like advantages over the 105..

What is the advantage of "full time" manual focus ?

I notice Ian thinks the Canon does have this while the Sigma doesn't-from your test can I assume that it does? (even if I'm not yet sure of the advantage)
Sorry_I've just seen your 2nd post.
 
I use my Canon 100mm macro with a 1.4tc when I want more working distance, this lens takes a tc very well with almost no loss of IQ (you need a non Canon tc though).
The Canon 100 is a cracking lens IMO.
 
I have the Sigma 150.Not taken any macro shots as such,(too windy!!!),but I have taken a couple of close up bird shots,colours very sharp.Seems an easy lens to use.I bought it for Butterflies,etc,so that one does not have to be too close.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 16 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top